dear org owners

[Eveas]

We are thinking on different scales. A big bonus for a noob to get them in a gym is $5000. Most orgs have no problem with that. I am thinking on a vastly larger scale. I am more thinking of the obscene ones that I've been getting offered lately that are way more than any fighter deserves. Much less the 3k P4P guy they were offering them to.

[Justus]

What about like a probationary tag? Basically, use a thumbs down and thumbs up that is seen only by the manager who receives the rating until he reaches a certain amount of bad ratings. For example, he gets a bad rating by one organization then he's the only one who knows and sees the rating. Now you continue to anger managers and say out of 10 contracted you have 4 bad reviews. So it's about a 40% negative rating. Once you hit a certain negative percentage after say 5 total ratings, then the rating becomes public. So say 3 out of 5 have rated you a thumbs down, now you get a probationary tag for some length of time. Say you have 10 days to clear a certain percentage of those bad ratings and then the tag is off. If you don't then you have an extended period of time with the tag until you can clear your name and get that bad rating percentage off your record.

 

I know it's not perfect but it cuts down on the sample size issue and makes it so a bad rating from a bad org owner doesn't stay with you forever. If anyone has improvements on this, I'd love to hear them and hash things out but I figured throwing out an alternative was better than re-iterating why I don't like auto-accept or an every rating counts thing.

 

Maybe not even show an exact percentage. On the manager page to the left of the manager name, show a red, yellow or green light to represent their rating/status as a manager.

 

Red - Bad = 1 - 39%

Yellow - Neutral = 40 - 60%

Green - Good = 61 - 100%

 

http://strategicdiscipline.positioningsystems.com/Portals/78084/images/Traffic%20Light%20Red%20Yellow%20Green-resized-600.jpg

[Guest]

I'd like it to show up immediately, despite the small sample size. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to screw over 4 people before you get warned about it. If the org owner's name was attached to the rating, you could quickly deduce which ones are unfair.

 

However, I love the idea about an expiry date on ratings. I thought about that as a flaw and was surprised nobody had mentioned it earlier. I know that some people break rules either through ignorance of etiquette or simple immaturity, but later reform and become good members. If ratings expire 6-12 months after you leave an org, then a checkered past won't follow you forever.

 

It is probably unnecessary because a good member will get enough good reviews to outweigh the one bad one anyway, but I like the idea of being able to totally reform and become a 100% rated manager if you deserve it.

[Warwynd]

Maybe not even show an exact percentage. On the manager page to the left of the manager name, show a red, yellow or green light to represent their rating/status as a manager.

 

Red - Bad = 1 - 39%

Yellow - Neutral = 40 - 60%

Green - Good = 61 - 100%

 

http://strategicdiscipline.positioningsystems.com/Portals/78084/images/Traffic%20Light%20Red%20Yellow%20Green-resized-600.jpg

I'd like it to show up immediately, despite the small sample size. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to screw over 4 people before you get warned about it. If the org owner's name was attached to the rating, you could quickly deduce which ones are unfair.

 

However, I love the idea about an expiry date on ratings. I thought about that as a flaw and was surprised nobody had mentioned it earlier. I know that some people break rules either through ignorance of etiquette or simple immaturity, but later reform and become good members. If ratings expire 6-12 months after you leave an org, then a checkered past won't follow you forever.

 

It is probably unnecessary because a good member will get enough good reviews to outweigh the one bad one anyway, but I like the idea of being able to totally reform and become a 100% rated manager if you deserve it.

 

These two ideas put together might be a good thing. I think 6-12 months is a really long time frame, but at least it would not be permanent. The reason why I think it should be a bit sooner is that if a guy is in the red due to a few bad ratings then he could have a tough time even getting into an org and just say fuck it and leave the game altogether. We do not want anything that drives people away. Even if that guy is/was ignorant of the etiquette or made a few bad decisions but has since reformed, if he had to wait a year to get that rating restored it might make someone who could otherwise become a good manager leave the game.

 

on the other hand it would have to stick around long enough to make it something that people would not want hanging around their necks like a dead albatross. It would need to be a deterent to shitty behaviour. Now we are back to square one with it again though. Balance needs to be struck to where it is a deterent and not open to abuse by shitty org owners. Admittedly there are not too many shitty owners out there, but they do exist.

 

I do agree that waiting for a manager to screw 4 people over before others get a warning would be self defeating for this idea though. I say either leave the rating system out altogether or make it happen immediately.

[Eveas]

One problem is if you think that manager is bad now just wait until he sees the rating you gave him. It won't be pretty.

[minark]

I do agree that waiting for a manager to screw 4 people over before others get a warning would be self defeating for this idea though. I say either leave the rating system out altogether or make it happen immediately.

 

It doesn't have to be 4. The idea was a rating percentage.

 

I'll just put it this way and be done with the topic. Do you think when the manager came on the forums saying Lance Templeton was a bad manager that this org owner should be able to hurt Lance's reputation? Lance is a great manager, that we all know, and we know it was a bad org owner not knowing what he was doing. I don't remember the exact situation, but I do remember someone coming on here and bad mouthing Lance.

 

So now Lance has 1 bad rating, and he's well known. People will ignore that bad rating for the most part and a well established manager such as Lance would probably be fine.

 

Now let's say TimBuck Two joins and is a great manager. He's done great by all his other organizations and he's currently in 10 orgs with his fighters. TimBuck turns down a fight because he's a good guy and doesn't want to can crush. Now the org owner pulls his power trip card and says I'm the org owner and you'll fight whoever I tell you to fight. Bad org manager 1 gives TimBuck a bad rating.

 

Should TimBuck unfairly be publicly flagged and now have to communicate with an org owner, take a smaller total payout as it's been said org owners would offer him smaller signing bonuses, take smaller fight contracts and possibly have to have a higher inactivity clause because people are concerned about this one shit org owner who flagged him as a bad manager?

 

Tell me how that encourages relatively newer and unknown manager TimBuck to stick around MMATycoon when he's falsely accused and punished for no reason?

 

Why not wait until he has at least 2 or 3 or even 4 if he has 20 fighters in orgs before we hang him by the cross? Why not encourage managers to want to stick around instead of brand them because 1 org owner can be a dick head?

[BigJoeSullivan]

 

When you sign up to an Org, you don't "pre agree" to take any fight offered

 

 

Misquote much? I never said that you pre-agree to fight any fight offered. I was referring to this fictitious >>>>OPTION<<<<<< that you have so much problem with. Do you understand what the word option means? That means YOU don't have to accept it. Thats what makes it optional. If you don't like it then it wont ever effect you so why the hell are you so against it?

 

I offer fair fights, I go out of my way to make them as fair as possible even going out to recruit people if I have someone that is difficult to match. If you had any idea how much trouble I go to to make sure my guys get fair fights you would probably feel a bit sheepish to even begin to accuse me of anything shady. My fighters rarely ever decline fights. My problem is not them declining it is the ones who just don't make a decision or don't log in at all. If they declined the day after I offered I would be mildy annoyed but would just go and find a new match. The problem is when it happens a week down the line and now I have a lot less time to fix the problem. What if the same thing happens with the replacement? It does happen.

 

All I'm asking for is for the contract to have the option to add a way to make them make a decision. I don't want them to auto-accept so i can give them shitty fights. I want it so that they will log in and make their own decision. It's motivation. As for all your scenarios where you may not be able to log in for 3 days ....sign with a different org then. I also think managers should be able to block all fight offers. If "needs a fight" is unchecked then the booker shouldn't be able to offer one. For all you asshats who don't pay attention to them. You guys are the problem, not the system.

 

You don't like the option fine. Someone who does shouldn't get to use it? Are you some kind of a fascist dictator? I could understand being against it if i was asking for this to be set game wide with no choice involved. You are being unreasonable.

[minark]

 

 

Misquote much? I never said that you pre-agree to fight any fight offered. I was referring to this fictitious >>>>OPTION<<<<<< that you have so much problem with. Do you understand what the word option means? That means YOU don't have to accept it. Thats what makes it optional. If you don't like it then it wont ever effect you so why the hell are you so against it?

 

I offer fair fights, I go out of my way to make them as fair as possible even going out to recruit people if I have someone that is difficult to match. If you had any idea how much trouble I go to to make sure my guys get fair fights you would probably feel a bit sheepish to even begin to accuse me of anything shady. My fighters rarely ever decline fights. My problem is not them declining it is the ones who just don't make a decision or don't log in at all. If they declined the day after I offered I would be mildy annoyed but would just go and find a new match. The problem is when it happens a week down the line and now I have a lot less time to fix the problem. What if the same thing happens with the replacement? It does happen.

 

All I'm asking for is for the contract to have the option to add a way to make them make a decision. I don't want them to auto-accept so i can give them shitty fights. I want it so that they will log in and make their own decision. It's motivation. As for all your scenarios where you may not be able to log in for 3 days ....sign with a different org then. I also think managers should be able to block all fight offers. If "needs a fight" is unchecked then the booker shouldn't be able to offer one. For all you asshats who don't pay attention to them. You guys are the problem, not the system.

 

You don't like the option fine. Someone who does shouldn't get to use it? Are you some kind of a fascist dictator? I could understand being against it if i was asking for this to be set game wide with no choice involved. You are being unreasonable.

 

Ahahahahahahaha... classic.

[Warwynd]

It doesn't have to be 4. The idea was a rating percentage.

 

I'll just put it this way and be done with the topic. Do you think when the manager came on the forums saying Lance Templeton was a bad manager that this org owner should be able to hurt Lance's reputation? Lance is a great manager, that we all know, and we know it was a bad org owner not knowing what he was doing. I don't remember the exact situation, but I do remember someone coming on here and bad mouthing Lance.

 

So now Lance has 1 bad rating, and he's well known. People will ignore that bad rating for the most part and a well established manager such as Lance would probably be fine.

 

Now let's say TimBuck Two joins and is a great manager. He's done great by all his other organizations and he's currently in 10 orgs with his fighters. TimBuck turns down a fight because he's a good guy and doesn't want to can crush. Now the org owner pulls his power trip card and says I'm the org owner and you'll fight whoever I tell you to fight. Bad org manager 1 gives TimBuck a bad rating.

 

Should TimBuck unfairly be publicly flagged and now have to communicate with an org owner, take a smaller total payout as it's been said org owners would offer him smaller signing bonuses, take smaller fight contracts and possibly have to have a higher inactivity clause because people are concerned about this one shit org owner who flagged him as a bad manager?

 

Tell me how that encourages relatively newer and unknown manager TimBuck to stick around MMATycoon when he's falsely accused and punished for no reason?

 

Why not wait until he has at least 2 or 3 or even 4 if he has 20 fighters in orgs before we hang him by the cross? Why not encourage managers to want to stick around instead of brand them because 1 org owner can be a dick head?

 

I don't disagree with your logic here. More to the point that I am not in favor of a rating system at all for managers. That was kind of the point. With a smaller cross section then one or two bad votes would make a much bigger difference. With managers rating orgs one vote means far less.

 

 

Misquote much? I never said that you pre-agree to fight any fight offered. I was referring to this fictitious >>>>OPTION<<<<<< that you have so much problem with. Do you understand what the word option means? That means YOU don't have to accept it. Thats what makes it optional. If you don't like it then it wont ever effect you so why the hell are you so against it?

 

I offer fair fights, I go out of my way to make them as fair as possible even going out to recruit people if I have someone that is difficult to match. If you had any idea how much trouble I go to to make sure my guys get fair fights you would probably feel a bit sheepish to even begin to accuse me of anything shady. My fighters rarely ever decline fights. My problem is not them declining it is the ones who just don't make a decision or don't log in at all. If they declined the day after I offered I would be mildy annoyed but would just go and find a new match. The problem is when it happens a week down the line and now I have a lot less time to fix the problem. What if the same thing happens with the replacement? It does happen.

 

All I'm asking for is for the contract to have the option to add a way to make them make a decision. I don't want them to auto-accept so i can give them shitty fights. I want it so that they will log in and make their own decision. It's motivation. As for all your scenarios where you may not be able to log in for 3 days ....sign with a different org then. I also think managers should be able to block all fight offers. If "needs a fight" is unchecked then the booker shouldn't be able to offer one. For all you asshats who don't pay attention to them. You guys are the problem, not the system.

 

You don't like the option fine. Someone who does shouldn't get to use it? Are you some kind of a fascist dictator? I could understand being against it if i was asking for this to be set game wide with no choice involved. You are being unreasonable.

 

I used to check the needs fight check box to make sure it was set where it should be, but frankly it is more trouble then it is worth. Org owners ignore it altogether and send fight offers anyway. I might set it to resting and then forget to turn it back on. Or whatever. I just leave it set to on and don't worry about it.

 

Is Grasman over-reacting? Maybe, but the idea of an auto-accept option no matter how you candy coat it is a bad idea. Why would anyone accept a contract with that on it. The same thing was said about existing contracts including a clause that would allow org owners to put clauses that force players to switch over to a merger. It was ridgedly opposed as well. No one likes not having the option to choose or be forced into something.

 

Neither I nor anyone else in here is saying that you are facist org owner that forces crappy matchups on the fighters signed with your org anymore than anyone is saying that managers are trying to take power from org owners. Believe me I would like to see a system in place that could prevent managers from being douche nozzles, but sadly, there doesn't seem to be a way that will not cause grief.

[Guest]

It doesn't have to be 4. The idea was a rating percentage.

 

I'll just put it this way and be done with the topic. Do you think when the manager came on the forums saying Lance Templeton was a bad manager that this org owner should be able to hurt Lance's reputation? Lance is a great manager, that we all know, and we know it was a bad org owner not knowing what he was doing. I don't remember the exact situation, but I do remember someone coming on here and bad mouthing Lance.

 

So now Lance has 1 bad rating, and he's well known. People will ignore that bad rating for the most part and a well established manager such as Lance would probably be fine.

 

Now let's say TimBuck Two joins and is a great manager. He's done great by all his other organizations and he's currently in 10 orgs with his fighters. TimBuck turns down a fight because he's a good guy and doesn't want to can crush. Now the org owner pulls his power trip card and says I'm the org owner and you'll fight whoever I tell you to fight. Bad org manager 1 gives TimBuck a bad rating.

 

Should TimBuck unfairly be publicly flagged and now have to communicate with an org owner, take a smaller total payout as it's been said org owners would offer him smaller signing bonuses, take smaller fight contracts and possibly have to have a higher inactivity clause because people are concerned about this one shit org owner who flagged him as a bad manager?

 

Tell me how that encourages relatively newer and unknown manager TimBuck to stick around MMATycoon when he's falsely accused and punished for no reason?

 

Why not wait until he has at least 2 or 3 or even 4 if he has 20 fighters in orgs before we hang him by the cross? Why not encourage managers to want to stick around instead of brand them because 1 org owner can be a dick head?

 

Is it possible that a bad org owner could abuse this? Of course, but that problem would be far, far smaller than the problems we currently have with bad managers causing crap. There is no such thing as a perfect system, so you have to go with what is closest to fair.

 

Right now, I would say that there are way more people quitting the game out of boredom because they signed up, got in with an org, got a fight offer, then had to wait for over a week.. Finally, the org owner cancelled the pending offer and sent them a new offer. The next manager was a jerk who decided not to respond. Now this new manager is approaching three weeks of waiting and getting frustrated with nothing happening.

 

I think the 1% of people who might get an unfair bad rating can suck it and survive in order to benefit the over 50% of managers who have been forced to wait like this at some point.

[minark]

 

 

Is it possible that a bad org owner could abuse this? Of course, but that problem would be far, far smaller than the problems we currently have with bad managers causing crap. There is no such thing as a perfect system, so you have to go with what is closest to fair.

 

Right now, I would say that there are way more people quitting the game out of boredom because they signed up, got in with an org, got a fight offer, then had to wait for over a week.. Finally, the org owner cancelled the pending offer and sent them a new offer. The next manager was a jerk who decided not to respond. Now this new manager is approaching three weeks of waiting and getting frustrated with nothing happening.

 

I think the 1% of people who might get an unfair bad rating can suck it and survive in order to benefit the over 50% of managers who have been forced to wait like this at some point.

 

I'll be the first to say that if you're waiting over a week to send new fight offers when managers are sitting on offers than that's bad org management and not just a bad manager not accepting a fight.

 

And I also think you're severely inflating the number of fighters who sit on an offer unless you're also counting managers that go inactive. Don't crucify the good to make up for the bad. Its turning into a witch hunt to provide org owners with excuses to flag managers if every single rating has to be counted.

 

If org owners can unfairly flag managers then it needs to be fair. 1 unhappy manager needs the ability to unfairly flag an organization in the same way notifying managers that the org is bad and they need a laundry list of things to do before redemption. And I'm not talking about a percentage rating that drops the org 1%, I'm talking about a full on thumbs down showing that the org is justly/unjustly dirty.

 

It works both ways. If you're going to make a bad org owner have the ability to ruin a managers reputation than the manager needs equal opportunity to ruin the orgs image.

 

On that note, I see no reason why a compromise of needing a number of votes wouldn't be much fairer. It gives orgs chances to flag managers if their playing games on multiple orgs and it gives managers flexibility to not have to keep EVERY bad org owner they run into completely happy in order to avoid a laundry list towards redemption to get them off the blacklist.

[Guest]

I'll be the first to say that if you're waiting over a week to send new fight offers when managers are sitting on offers than that's bad org management and not just a bad manager not accepting a fight.

 

And I also think you're severely inflating the number of fighters who sit on an offer unless you're also counting managers that go inactive. Don't crucify the good to make up for the bad. Its turning into a witch hunt to provide org owners with excuses to flag managers if every single rating has to be counted.

 

If org owners can unfairly flag managers then it needs to be fair. 1 unhappy manager needs the ability to unfairly flag an organization in the same way notifying managers that the org is bad and they need a laundry list of things to do before redemption. And I'm not talking about a percentage rating that drops the org 1%, I'm talking about a full on thumbs down showing that the org is justly/unjustly dirty.

 

It works both ways. If you're going to make a bad org owner have the ability to ruin a managers reputation than the manager needs equal opportunity to ruin the orgs image.

 

On that note, I see no reason why a compromise of needing a number of votes wouldn't be much fairer. It gives orgs chances to flag managers if their playing games on multiple orgs and it gives managers flexibility to not have to keep EVERY bad org owner they run into completely happy in order to avoid a laundry list towards redemption to get them off the blacklist.

 

First of all, I don't think one bad rating ruins a manager's reputation, especially if ratings have an expiry date.

 

Secondly, if I didn't wait one week for fights to be accepted or declined, no fight card would EVER be full. If I send out a full fight card with 20 offers, if I wait three days, I will probably have about 10 responses. If I wait a week, that usually goes up to about 15-16 responses. After one week, I usually have one fight in which neither person has accepted, so I simply book a new fight, then there are about three fights where only one person has accepted. That means about 50% of the members in my org respond in less than three days. Another 25% respond between 3 days and one week, and another 25% take longer than one week (and get their fights rescheduled).

 

I used to cancel fight offers that weren't accepted or declined within 3-4 days, but that creates more headaches and needs for last minute bookings. When 50% of fighters take longer than 3 days to accept most offers, it is unreasonable to cancel after 3 days and expect to be able to offer a full card.

 

As for your compromise, I think it could work, but it would need to be one warning only. Nobody is going to get unfairly labeled as a bad manager by two separate org owners. If that happens, there is a reason for it. I would have no issues at all with keeping the first one private. However, by saying it needs to be 3 or 4 bad ratings before it goes public, you are giving guys the chance to screw over several orgs before they get caught.

[Lockdown]

actually I retract my previous popcorn gif

 

I haven't read a single post besides the first half of page 1

[Grasman]

Is it possible that a bad org owner could abuse this? Of course, but that problem would be far, far smaller than the problems we currently have with bad managers causing crap. There is no such thing as a perfect system, so you have to go with what is closest to fair.

 

Right now, I would say that there are way more people quitting the game out of boredom because they signed up, got in with an org, got a fight offer, then had to wait for over a week.. Finally, the org owner cancelled the pending offer and sent them a new offer. The next manager was a jerk who decided not to respond. Now this new manager is approaching three weeks of waiting and getting frustrated with nothing happening.

 

I think the 1% of people who might get an unfair bad rating can suck it and survive in order to benefit the over 50% of managers who have been forced to wait like this at some point.

Since the Org owner can pull a fight offer when it suits them, whats the problem?

Org owner unhappyness over the hassle of having to pull a fight offer?

And you want to be able to "flag managers ad bad" to avoid the hassle?

or have a ridiculous "Auto Accept" system fucking some managers over to lessen your burden?

 

Sorry man, I just don't get that logic.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier for "fed up Org owners" to run a different business that requires less hassle, than to potentially force all kinds of crap onto managers?

 

The Org owner can make his own "internal rules" of having a fight offer only out there for 3-4 days max.

If there is no response from one of the managers, you pull the offer.

Then you write the managers name in your own "book of shame", bollock the manager about it and tell him that if he doesn't shape up, you'll ship him out.

 

Where is the problem with that, other than a bit of hassle for the org owner?

 

I have seen Org owners abuse their powers badly, hence I will not support anything that gives org owners more "power" over managers than they already have.

[Grasman]

 

Misquote much? I never said that you pre-agree to fight any fight offered. I was referring to this fictitious >>>>OPTION<<<<<< that you have so much problem with. Do you understand what the word option means? That means YOU don't have to accept it. Thats what makes it optional. If you don't like it then it wont ever effect you so why the hell are you so against it?

 

I offer fair fights, I go out of my way to make them as fair as possible even going out to recruit people if I have someone that is difficult to match. If you had any idea how much trouble I go to to make sure my guys get fair fights you would probably feel a bit sheepish to even begin to accuse me of anything shady. My fighters rarely ever decline fights. My problem is not them declining it is the ones who just don't make a decision or don't log in at all. If they declined the day after I offered I would be mildy annoyed but would just go and find a new match. The problem is when it happens a week down the line and now I have a lot less time to fix the problem. What if the same thing happens with the replacement? It does happen.

 

All I'm asking for is for the contract to have the option to add a way to make them make a decision. I don't want them to auto-accept so i can give them shitty fights. I want it so that they will log in and make their own decision. It's motivation. As for all your scenarios where you may not be able to log in for 3 days ....sign with a different org then. I also think managers should be able to block all fight offers. If "needs a fight" is unchecked then the booker shouldn't be able to offer one. For all you asshats who don't pay attention to them. You guys are the problem, not the system.

 

You don't like the option fine. Someone who does shouldn't get to use it? Are you some kind of a fascist dictator? I could understand being against it if i was asking for this to be set game wide with no choice involved. You are being unreasonable.

Which one of us bears a fascist in his forum name AND is affiliated with an Org....hmmmmm.

 

Regardless of that, org owners can write what they want (and often do) in the fight offer, there you can specify what you want. I sometimes accept crappier deals because the Org owner sounds good in the Contract offer quote.

 

Regarding the "option" part. I have already, in this thread said i could accept where the manager could "opt in" to a system like that.

What i don't get is why anyone would do so.

This could simply be something that appears on the managers contract page, like where he specifies how long it should be between fights.

 

But i would not want to see that on the contract offer, as i often accept offers without reading them through and usually don't pay much attention to it.

If i like the numbers, what org it is and where it's located, I accept the contract, but i don't pay too much attention to the rest of the contract elements.

If the offer has a way to long inactivity period, i just don't sign for that org again.

 

I don't want to have to worry about accidentally opting into some crap like proposed, hence i don't want it into the contract offers.

But as an opt in at the contracts page, that's fair enough, but then I would like to get an "opt out" of the contract at the same time,

if the Org doesn't live up to the frequency of fights as specified by the manager.

Meaning the if the org can't provide my fighter, who i want to fight every 3 weeks with fights every 3 weeks, he gets a reminder.

If the 4th week passes, then the fighter would be free to leave, while at the same time automatically paying back the signing fee,

to the extent of the number of fight left on the contract.

 

There is already a system in place (as far as i'm aware), that pays back the signing fee to the Org if the fighter leaves without fighting at all, minimising any loss to the Org..

[Guest]

 

The Org owner can make his own "internal rules" of having a fight offer only out there for 3-4 days max.

If there is no response from one of the managers, you pull the offer.

Then you write the managers name in your own "book of shame", bollock the manager about it and tell him that if he doesn't shape up, you'll ship him out.

 

Where is the problem with that, other than a bit of hassle for the org owner?

 

This isn't about hassle for me. I've spent far longer arguing about this on the forums that it would take me to simply offer new fights. It is completely unfair to the other fighters in the org to leave an offer on the table for over a week.

 

Here is a sad but true story from my org. I try to get my guys fighting once every three weeks. I sent out fight offers to the top contenders in a weight class. All fights were accepted within 2 days except for one. I kept the offer open for a week, hoping for something to be accepted. After a week, I gave up and cancelled the fight. However, there were no fair fights to be immediately offered to him. I had to wait one week for another fight card to finish to find him something near his skills and hype level. I emailed the new matchup and asked him if he would be willing to fight on short notice since a fighter had been waiting. He said no, he needed a full three week camp.

 

I offered the fight for three weeks, meaning that the original fighter would go five weeks between fights. This second manager who verbally agreed to a three week fight in PM then left the fight offer on the table for a full week, By this point in time, the other contenders in the weight class had already fought. I offered the original manager a third opponent. The opponent felt the fight wasn't fair and declined after four days of stalling. I felt really bad for this fighter, so I paid a large signing bonus to a fighter from a lower weight class to step up in weight for one fight to give a matchup to the manager who was getting screwed. He finally got his fight, but had to wait almost seven weeks between fights.

 

I'm not proposing these ideas because I want power or want to spend less time on my fight cards. I truly enjoy designing fight cards and matching fighters. However, it is completely unfair to your opponent to leave an offer on the table.

 

Now I know this is an extreme example. 95% of the time, if a manager stalls, I can scramble and find someone to fight short notice or push the original fighter back to 4 weeks between fights instead of 3 weeks, but it does occasionally happen where a guy has to wait five, six, seven weeks because multiple managers pull this crap on him in a row.

 

Stalling on fight offers is much worse than I think most of the people on here know. Like I said before, only about 50% of offers I send out are responded to within 3 days and 25% of offers are still unanswered after a week.

 

There is a lot of criticism out there of the current ideas, but not a lot of suggestions for better ideas. Please, if you don't like the ideas, propose something that you think is a better way to solve the problem, because trust me, it is a huge problem in ID restricted orgs.

 

Another idea I have had is to allow org owners to see an "average time to respond" stat. That way I would be able to avoid managers who take a long time to accept of decline.

[Grasman]

----snip----

 

Another idea I have had is to allow org owners to see an "average time to respond" stat. That way I would be able to avoid managers who take a long time to accept of decline.

This is a very good idea actually.

I can't see any problems with that what so ever.

 

The "snipped" part of your post were also good valid points.

[Guest]

This is a very good idea actually.

I can't see any problems with that what so ever.

 

The "snipped" part of your post were also good valid points.

 

Mike Tycoon just brought up a very simple idea that I think everyone can live with in another thread. He suggested that after a certain number of logins, you would be locked onto the accept/decline screen. You would be able to view the scout page, your opponent's profile, and his fight histories, but couldn't do anything else in the game until you either accept or decline the fight.

 

This way there is no auto-accept forcing innocent people into fights. There are no bad org owners unfairly rating people, but stalling is prevented. Mike Tycoon to the rescue with an extremely simple, yet overlooked solution.

[Eveas]

Mike Tycoon just brought up a very simple idea that I think everyone can live with in another thread. He suggested that after a certain number of logins, you would be locked onto the accept/decline screen. You would be able to view the scout page, your opponent's profile, and his fight histories, but couldn't do anything else in the game until you either accept or decline the fight.

 

This way there is no auto-accept forcing innocent people into fights. There are no bad org owners unfairly rating people, but stalling is prevented. Mike Tycoon to the rescue with an extremely simple, yet overlooked solution.

This idea also came up earlier in this thread. It seems like a decent compromise.

[minark]

Mike Tycoon just brought up a very simple idea that I think everyone can live with in another thread. He suggested that after a certain number of logins, you would be locked onto the accept/decline screen. You would be able to view the scout page, your opponent's profile, and his fight histories, but couldn't do anything else in the game until you either accept or decline the fight.

 

This way there is no auto-accept forcing innocent people into fights. There are no bad org owners unfairly rating people, but stalling is prevented. Mike Tycoon to the rescue with an extremely simple, yet overlooked solution.

 

I would only be happy with this if it also included the PM's screen. As I've said a hundred times, there have been times where I was communicating with org owners on the fight in question.

 

So with this you're now telling me I can't communicate with the org owners anymore about the fight? I just have to accept or decline it without continuing conversations? I don't like the idea unless PM page is added.

[Justus]

I would only be happy with this if it also included the PM's screen. As I've said a hundred times, there have been times where I was communicating with org owners on the fight in question.

 

So with this you're now telling me I can't communicate with the org owners anymore about the fight? I just have to accept or decline it without continuing conversations? I don't like the idea unless PM page is added.

 

Mike gave a number of like 50 logins. That isn't enough to communicate? Lol, really?

[minark]

Mike gave a number of like 50 logins. That isn't enough to communicate? Lol, really?

 

I didn't see Mike's number but if he said 50, then you're right. That is definitely enough to communicate, but for some people that'll be like 25-50 days. Lol. Not everyone logs on here 15 times a day.

[Rambo]

 

Red - Bad = 1 - 39%

Yellow - Neutral = 40 - 60%

Green - Good = 61 - 100%

 

http://strategicdiscipline.positioningsystems.com/Portals/78084/images/Traffic%20Light%20Red%20Yellow%20Green-resized-600.jpg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVUpiV3sTc

[Eveas]

I didn't see Mike's number but if he said 50, then you're right. That is definitely enough to communicate, but for some people that'll be like 25-50 days. Lol. Not everyone logs on here 15 times a day.

He might have meant 50 page clicks, so if you log in, check your mail, view your alliance page, and change your clothes that could be 10 pages easily. At least I am hoping that is what he meant.

[minark]

Deleted